Hmm.. I don't think his idea is about censorship per se. He wants the option to publish in such a way where only his followers will see the post. So maybe it's a form of self-censorship? Something like

"You digress. We've been talking about self rewarding until now." Hmm, I thought we were debating flags. "An upvote is not a tip someone gives, but an expression of opinion that the content

It should be if you just do it on the condenser level, right?

"To me, it's an expression of opinion. Don't know how you feel about those ;)" I love expressions of opinions, but not when they're attached to negative financial outcomes. In fact, with the

"Nobody forfeits any assets. It's not theirs as long as it's not paid out." Try convincing a freshly on-boarded user of that. I tell you what, for sake of argument let's call the downvote a sanction.

This is a great idea for the condenser level. I have another for you. Change downvote back to a flag. Call the upvote button a tip jar, and add a Reddit style up and downsort button which only serves to

"If someone comes here not believing in the idea to reward the best content they're simply in the wrong place and would be better off to browse Reddit or create their own subreddit and invest in a

That's the thing though; Not everyone comes here to do PoS, some do, and it can look nasty on trending. This is why trending needs to get fixed. However, if we don't respect the upvote autonomy of self

People invested a bunch of money into a system that creates virtual tokens. These virtual tokens are generated at a certain percentage depending on the year and based on the total supply. It's 2019, which

"lol what xDso I paid 20% but dont even get my 2 slices? fuck that" Sure you do, vote yourself up. Post and math updated to reflect a 10 slice pizza pie. 20%=2 ←and→ 80%=8 Point is, with a 20

Investors are limited. They put money in to take money out, and this gives Steem value. So if an investor gets a high reward, they are doing it with their own money. See rate-limited voting in the whitepaper

Good post, I'm glad you pointed this out. Sometimes I wonder why people fail to see the relationship between cause and effect.

No doubt, it'll be interesting to see where the GUI change, along with the HF21 tagent leads the Steem culture too. Better online than IRL with these kind of experiments. Thx for the chat, interesting

If it makes you feel any better; I’d be for a UBI if it didn’t involve theft, chicanery, was practical and worked. But UBI involves theft, chicanery, is impractical, won’t work, and will destroy the economy.

That's valid for 99% of crypto "investors" Right. Also, the investors are a large part of Steem's initial success. If we can disenchant them enough, we can drive them off and see what that does.

Nebulous because it seems hazy, vague, indistinct, or confused. The whitepaper appears to suggest two different paths in the same breath. When I say social experiment, I mean on par with Milgram’s experiment.

I'm confident in the arguments I made at the link you posted above. It was also a better discussion, because it didn't devolve into degeneracy like today's did. Additionally, I am certain all countries

Right, so when I talk it's nonsense and when you talk it is "critical thinking and logic." Congratulations, you seem acutely intoxicated with your own scent of degenerate scumbaggery.

Well, usually with that combination of words that you chose to describe yourself with, the connotation is negative. Also I don't know what whale experiment your describing or how you define "indisputable

I was served? Public health and public schooling are a plague, why would I want to pay more in taxes to get those for "free?" Have you figured what percentage of a UBI Yang is going to add on